QIGONG AND SCIENCE
What is your concern or interest on how to integrate qigong and science? Is there any point to this? (I realize the West has a rigid view, and needs to see 'hard' scientific data before implementations happen with medicine.)
The double standard wittingly or unwittingly adopted by many western professionals often baffles me. In my opinion, there is hardly any “hard” scientific data on the success or even suitability of using chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery on cancer patients!
I sometimes wonder whether the professionals who administer chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery on cancer patients really know what they are doing. Since they explicitly or implicitly admit they do not know what cancer is, and therefore do not know what it is they are supposed to cure, it is difficult for me to find their treatment objective, predictable or veritable — three crucial criteria for anything scientific.
On the other hand, qigong is objective (although it is often not quantified), predictable and veritable. Unlike western professionals who are not sure what cause cancer, and therefore their recommended treatment is based on their subjective judgement, qigong masters are sure that illness, irrespective of the labels given to its countless symptoms, is caused by yin-yang disharmony, and therefore their treatment is based on the objective principle of restoring yin-yang harmony.
While western professionals cannot predict that chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery can remove the cause of cancer, qigong masters can predict that when yin-yang harmony is restored the illness will be overcome.
And while western professionals cannot verify whether a cancer patient is cured of his disease after he has undergone treatment of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery (usually the patient has to wait for several years to find out whether his disease will relapse), chi kung masters can verify that once yin-yang harmony is restored, the patient is cured — and this is often substantiated by conventional medical tests.
The question of integrating qigong and science is irrelevant because qigong is already scientific. It is as irrelevant as asking how to integrate Chinese into a language.
Until and unless western medical scientists accept the fact that their way of looking at health and medical treatment is not the only correct way, there is no point attempting to integrate qigong with western medicine — just as until and unless western linguists accept the fact that western grammar and spelling are not the only ways to describe a language, there is no point debating whether Chinese is a language.
Say, you had diabetes. Your doctor told you that your diabetes could not be cured and you would have to take medication for life.
You practiced qigong, and after some time you found that your diabetes had disappeared. You saw your doctor again, and he said you were just lucky or yours was a natural recession. I would accept his opinion if yours was an isolated case, or even there were two or three such cases.
But if 40 out of 50 diabetics recovered from their illness after practicing qigong, and the doctor still said it was luck or natural recession, I would consider him hopelessly closed to other medical thought and treatment. If he challenged me to substantiate with hard data like sugar level and metabolism rate, I would not want to waste my time.
The above is taken from Question 16 of December 1998 Part 1 of the Selection of Questions and Answers.
Courses and Classes